Sonny Limatina
Ding dong ding
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Posts
- 21,875
No, actually right here is where you make up shit that I never said.
If you think that eliminating a board or agency would be a good idea then you need to have some kind of data to back up that assertion. Perhaps eliminating something would be a good idea, maybe not. But the fact is that you don't know what these agencies are doing. Until you have some actual information, you're just engaging in more angry baseless bitching.
Just to illustrate your ignorant bitching, let's look at this Biodiversity Council.
About the California Biodiversity Council The California Biodiversity Council (CBC) was formed in 1991 to improve coordination and cooperation between the various resource management and environmental protection organizations at federal, state, and local levels. Strengthening ties between local communities and governments has been a focus of the Council by way of promoting strong local leadership and encouraging comprehensive solutions to regional issues.
The Council was not created to independently establish new projects nor to become another bureaucracy. Rather, its purpose is to discuss, coordinate, and assist in developing strategies and complementary policies for conserving biodiversity. Members exchange information, resolve conflicts, and promote development of regional conservation practices.
The Council has 42 members, including 20 state agencies, 12 federal agencies, and 10 local governments. It is chaired by California Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman and Bureau of Land Management California State Director Mike Pool.
The Council meets 2-3 times a year on issues relating to natural resource conservation in California.
It's a discussion group that meets only 2-3 times per year. It has zero employees and zero bureaucracy. Its goal is to help the government work better. That means taxpayer money is better-spent and possibly less-spent.
Information like this doesn't matter to you though. You look at things like this through your lens of blinding ignorance and bullshit partisan indoctination.
Not to poke my nose in, but Ham's a bright guy. He's a conservative, like you're a liberal. In and of itself, that doesn't mean anything good or bad about either of you. Why not ask, instead of accuse? The accusation itself is its own form of 'blinding ignorance and bullshit partisan indoctrination'--and the answer just might have been interesting.
Last edited: